-1

Your rocket was launching. Something went wrong. It is outside of the safety corridor. The range control attempts to terminate the flight, but the Flight Termination System (FTS) fails. Now what happens?

Starship - On Strike
  • 1
  • 1
  • 17
  • 65
Blue Skin and Glowing Red Eyes
  • 845
  • 2
  • 21
  • 7
    Seems pretty obvious. – Organic Marble Feb 28 '23 at 00:55
  • 3
    I’m voting to close this question because it is obvious – Starship - On Strike Feb 28 '23 at 01:10
  • @Starshipisgoforlaunch - They always have plan 'B'. This is what this question is about. For example, a failed Falcon 9 can still try to steer to a safer zone for crash-landing. – TheMatrix Equation-balance Feb 28 '23 at 01:55
  • 5
    @TheMatrixEquation-balance Range Safety is "Plan B". Even if your assertion about Falcon vehicles is correct, not all vehicles can do that. – Organic Marble Feb 28 '23 at 01:56
  • @OrganicMarble - what particular vehicle capabilities have to do with this question? This question is about FAA requirements for a safe rocket launch. And plan 'B' could very well be written in these requirements. – TheMatrix Equation-balance Feb 28 '23 at 02:01
  • 5
    @TheMatrixEquation-balance "This question is about FAA requirements for a safe rocket launch." You appear to be looking at a different question from the one I am commenting on. And, BTW, you are the one who brought up Falcon capabilities, not me. – Organic Marble Feb 28 '23 at 02:02
  • 4
    Terminating the flight is a last-resort action. Maybe, someday, we'll have a story where the range safety devices fail to fire and then we'll find out if people have a chance to come up with some sort of heroic "SCE to AUX" sort of action that allows the vehicle to recover or return to its corridor, but if you can come up with an action in advance to recover the vehicle, surely you'd attempt that before destroying the vehicle. – Erin Anne Feb 28 '23 at 09:29
  • 8
    @TheMatrixEquation-balance A failed Falcon 9 steering itself to a safer zone is "Plan B". What if "Plan B" doesn't work? Maybe invoke "Plan C"? The Flight Termination System is what I would call "Plan Z". There are no letters left, there are no plans for what happens if the FTS itself fails. That's why the FTS is designed to be infallible. – David Hammen Feb 28 '23 at 11:17
  • @DavidHammen - I am not arguing with that. However, there could be a self-destruction routine (Z+) if communication with a rocket is lost. I am arguing against this unintelligent practice of a few active users in space.stackexchange to close questions that they don't have ready answers for. – TheMatrix Equation-balance Feb 28 '23 at 13:28
  • I dont believe that there is any answer beyond what I have said – Starship - On Strike Feb 28 '23 at 13:43
  • 2
    @Starshipisgoforlaunch You should have said in your answer that flight termination, whether commanded by humans or automated, is the last resort action. If flight termination doesn't work the vehicle may fall down on a populated area. The flight termination system is designed to always work once the signal is sent (commanded FTS) or once the automated FTS detects the vehicle is misbehaving badly. – David Hammen Feb 28 '23 at 18:59
  • I have @DavidHammen – Starship - On Strike Feb 28 '23 at 19:11
  • 1
    @TheMatrixEquation-balance oh, you're talking about Autonomous Flight Termination Systems? I suppose it isn't clear in the question, but I'd assumed that the question would equally apply to autonomous systems failing. It'd be a very strange situation for Range Safety to call for termination (and that failing) prior to an autonomous situation attempting to trigger itself. – Erin Anne Feb 28 '23 at 23:53

1 Answers1

6

It depends on if at least some engines are on. In the event of a failure where no thrust is being generated (all engines are off), the rocket crashes according to its ballistic trajectory (where ever it was already going before the failure occured). On the other hand, if the engines are still producing thrust it will go wherever it's malfunctioning thrust, control, engine, or whatever else it is leading it. The point being, we can't control the rocket (which is basically a massive tank of flammable propellant with a some exterior). It may fall down on populated areas. It could actually be fine and fall on unpopulated areas are be broken up by aerodynamic forces high above the ground. Of course, this isn't something that people want to risk. There is also something else you should note. Flight termination is the last resort. Destroying a rocket and its payload, sometimes costing lifes or billions of dollars is not preferrable. The only reason that a Flight Termination System will be activitied is if the rocket endangers civilians lives. This is why the Flight Termination System (also known as FTS) must be fail-safe. After all, people designed and manufacturing a payload or astronauts riding on rockets have volunteered for the risks of spaceflight, civilians in their homes have not.

Starship - On Strike
  • 1
  • 1
  • 17
  • 65
  • 1
    I have fixed this issue @Moo – Starship - On Strike Feb 28 '23 at 23:07
  • 1
    This answer is misleading. No rocket is designed to sacrifices its human payload. Either there is no FTS, or the escape tower will be used in conjunction. I think you should remove any reference to astronauts sacrifice. It's also worth pointing that a failing rocket is very likely to be destroyed by aerodynamics forces if it goes too far off its flight envelope. – Antzi Mar 02 '23 at 10:26
  • 2
    @antzi please see https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2648/space-shuttle-range-safety-system-why-is-there-a-caution-light?rq=1 You are technically correct in that the shuttle itself did not have destruct charges but the final result from a flight termination call was pretty much the same for most of ascent. – GremlinWranger Mar 02 '23 at 10:48
  • 1
    @Antzi One of the key reasons the US now launches from one of the coasts, with flights directed over water, is because the US initially used White Sands, New Mexico to test their rockets. A rocket intended to fly north instead veered south, eventually crashing very close to a mining munitions depot near Juarez, Mexico. That very close call (and international incident) eventually resulted in the move to Cape Canaveral. – David Hammen Mar 10 '23 at 12:21